Here's a crazy idea, if you want more context, ask for it. But again, it is not unethical to not provide any.
I would ask _why_ some people are seemingly reluctant to provide this information if they don't feel keeping quiet is giving them some kind of unethical advantage?
Its the same mistake most people make when it comes to understanding positive and negative rights. Bare baseline should not be considered wrong simply for being baseline.
Quoting NimIts the same mistake most people make when it comes to understanding positive and negative rights. Bare baseline should not be considered wrong simply for being baseline.This raises more questions than it provides answers. Care to elaborate?
Quoting NimHere's a crazy idea, if you want more context, ask for it. But again, it is not unethical to not provide any.I don't see how this somehow allows some "artist" to blatantly rip off another. Rip off as in not giving credit, thus implicitly claiming it as their own work entirely.
How many sceners copied Boris or Michael Whelan over the decades?
It may be an homage, it may just be the context it's used in where it's obviously not original (like known photoreferences). The point of the picture may be the motif itself, the artist may just have challenged himself by wanting to try and see how they manage a certain gradient in a picture or whatever.
It's interesting to observe that, whilst graphcians may not all completely agree, they can usually appreciate why these things are an issue for some. It's equally interesting to observe how, in the case of many coders, they seem completely unable to grasp the most basic points of the discussion.
For how long do we have to listen to this non-argument, this tired old trope?
What about 1:1 “tracing paper” style copies?